Another hollow victory for educational censorship

Published: 21 January 2012(GMT+10)

Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association (BHA) are celebrating this
week.1 Following the launch
of their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism‘
campaign in September last year, the UK’s Department of Education has revised
the regulations relating to teaching about origins in government funded schools.
Those ‘free schools’2
that teach creation or intelligent design (ID) in science lessons will, from now
on, have their financial support withdrawn.

Despite the media furore, however, this comes as no surprise (see Timeline below).
Shortly before becoming the UK’s Secretary of State for Education, Michael
Gove made the following statement on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show:

“Well, to my mind, you cannot have a school which teaches creationism. And
one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you cannot have schools which
are set up which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we
know to be scientific fact.”3

What is particularly sad about these kinds of statements is that what is understood
to be ‘scientific fact’ is, in fact, nothing more than thinly disguised
philosophical naturalism (aka atheism).4

Secularism not science

The recent refusal of the BHA’s president Polly Toynbee and its vice-president
Richard Dawkins to debate William Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist, must
raise questions in people’s minds about the soundness of their arguments.

The BHA exists, primarily, to further the cause of secularism. They want to forge
a new society where the thinking and values of previous generations, guided by Christianity
and the Bible, are forgotten. Our morality and laws, they claim, should not be based
on such religious myths; rather, they say, we should remodel our society based on
more ‘rational’, secular ideas. Moreover, they know that if they can
persuade people that science supports their position, they will have won a great
victory. Particularly, if they can convince people that their existence can be explained
entirely by natural processes—indeed, that no creator was necessary—they will have
delivered a coup de grâce against those who work so hard to preserve our
society’s Christian roots. And what better place to start than with vulnerable
school children who know no better? Writing in The Humanist John Dunphy
argued,

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged
and won in the [school] classroom by teachers who correctly perceive
their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of
humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity
in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as
the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of
another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values
in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool
day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena
of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together
with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism …

It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow
and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind
is to survive.”5

Those who have made an effort to consider the views aggressively promoted by the
BHA will know that they are hard to defend. (See, for example,
here, here
and here.) Moreover, the recent refusal of the BHA’s
president Polly Toynbee and its vice-president Richard Dawkins to debate William
Lane Craig, a leading Christian apologist, must raise questions in people’s
minds about the soundness of their arguments. Why, if the facts so clearly support
their position, do they not confidently accept the challenge and grasp the opportunity
to publically argue their case? And why, if the likes of Richard Dawkins know that
science so clearly establishes the theory of evolution as being true, will they
not publically debate representatives from creationist organisations such as CMI?

The rhetoric of the BHA and their fellow atheists is manifestly not based
on reason or rationality; and this was, again, made clear in a short radio exchange
that one of us (DS) had with the BHA’s chief executive Andrew Copson, shortly
after the launch of their ‘Teach Evolution,
not Creationism’ campaign.6
His response to my first statement was astonishing. I said,

“The people running this campaign want the youngsters to be taught that everything
they see around them—all matter and life itself—came about through natural processes.
Effectively, they want the youngsters to be taught that this is the only rational
way to think. Now, since science has not shown this to be true, since the idea that
everything came about through natural processes is not a deduction from science,
this view comes out of a belief system. It is really the religion of scientism,
and we should not be using science classes to indoctrinate youngsters in religious
beliefs.”

Copson replied,

“Well there are two misconceptions there in what’s just been said. Firstly
is that this is somehow about the origins of life. It’s not about the origins
of life; it’s about the origin of species. It’s about how living things
came to have the considerable diversity they have in the world today, and it’s
about the processes of natural selection that brought that about. So, to confuse
the issue by saying it’s about the origin of life and if you don’t believe
that the origin of life had a supernatural cause then you’re inflicting a
naturalistic/scientistic view—that’s not what it’s about.”

Trampling truth

However, in arguing that the debate is not about the origin of life (by which he
means abiogensis—life from non-life), Copson is equivocating. My point was that
the BHA and their fellow secularists want the school children to be indoctrinated
into the belief that natural processes can explain the existence of “all life”.
I was referring to the grand sweep of the evolutionary story of ‘molecules
to man’. It was Copson who was confusing the issue by suggesting that the
alleged evolutionary origin of the first life forms is not at issue here. It is
fundamental to the debate because, as all informed evolutionists are painfully
aware, known science indicates that abiogenesis could never happen without supernatural
intervention.7,8,9 The
BHA’s strategy of concentrating on the issue of natural selection as a causal
factor in life’s diversity is a favourite
bait and switch tactic of the apostles of secularism and evolution. They
point to the scientific evidence that there are natural processes driving speciation—where
new species arise from existing species of the same kind—and leave people with the
impression that the same processes can create life in the first place.

The truth of the matter is that the BHA and prominent British atheists are desperate
to keep school students in the dark about the scientific bankruptcy of evolution.

Moreover, how can Copson say that preventing teachers from discussing the inadequacies
of evolution theory as an explanation for our existence and considering alternatives
is not inflicting a naturalistic/scientistic10,11
view? This is patently absurd. And how can he claim to have considered our arguments
and then suggest that we oppose the teaching of natural selection as science? We
have made it very clear in many of our publications that we accept the
reality of natural selection. (Of course, we also make the point that natural
selection is not evolution as it doesn’t create new genetic information—it
simply acts upon that which already exists.)

Andrew Copson is a highly intelligent, well educated and articulate man, with a
degree from Oxford University. Why then, if he and his colleagues have the moral
and intellectual high ground as they claim, do they resort to this kind of deception?

The truth of the matter is that the BHA and prominent British atheists are desperate
to keep school students in the dark—not to mention the general public—about the
scientific bankruptcy of evolution. And, as revealed earlier in the words of humanist
John Dunphy, this is as much about marginalising Christianity itself as it is about
propagating their own religious “faith of humanism”. The consequences
for societies which, like Britain, are moving in this direction are baleful. T.S.
Eliot wrote:

“If Christianity goes, the whole of our culture goes. Then you must start
painfully again, and you cannot put on a new culture ready made … You must
pass through many centuries of barbarism.”12

Of course, these poignant words are not the whole story. However difficult the days
may prove to be in this struggle for the truth and authority of the Bible, we may
still be encouraged and there is plenty that we can still be doing.

Call to action

The apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable,
always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labour is
not in vain.”13
Many reading this article (plus see the ‘Timeline’ below) will be incensed
by these attempts of a vocal and powerful minority to stifle the truth, restricting
freedom of speech on such vital issues. But what action will you
take? This is certainly not a time for good people to do nothing, paralysed by a
defeatist attitude.

It is high time that all Christian churches that see these things clearly
recognise this as a call to arms. Churches need to be making sure that their young
people are fully equipped to deal with the barrage of secular, anti-God philosophy
that is drip-fed through the educational institutions (including those with academic
excellence). Christian parents need to be more vigilant than ever in countering
insidious humanistic propaganda that threatens their children—whatever
form this takes. CMI is here to help. We provide a wealth of resources to help you
counter evolutionary indoctrination. We are constantly adding to our
Media Centre content—see the Creation Magazine Live shows, the
Genesis Unleashed shows, our radio spots and CMI’s YouTube channel,
CreationClips. Our online Parent’s
Corner is packed with helpful articles, ebooks and study guides for
parents and their children. For those who home-school—or who are considering doing
so—check out the many excellent educational
and curriculum resources available through our online webstore. And there’s
so much more that all of us can do at a grass roots level—sharing Creation
magazine, pointing Facebook friends to helpful information.

Remember that the eternal destiny of souls is what is ultimately at stake. Therefore,
the frustrations and setbacks that we may encounter along the way are more than
worth it: “I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”14

Timeline

The following bullet points highlight some of the pertinent news items relating
to the situation in the UK in recent years:

September 2008—
Michael Reiss forced to resign as director of education for the Royal Society,
for suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms. He said
“that in his experience it is more effective to include discussion about creationism
alongside scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution.”15

November 2008—A new poll in the UK found that 29% of teachers, surveyed via email,
thought that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science. And
nearly 50% said they thought excluding these ideas from the classroom would alienate
students from science.16

March 2009—The Guardian newspaper (UK) reported on a survey of beliefs
in creationism and ID across the UK, region by region. This revealed a national
average of 17% “who believe that human beings were created by God in the last
10,000 years.” In total, approximately one third of those surveyed preferred
creationism/ID as against evolution.17

October 2009—The Guardian newspaper (UK) ran an article with the self-explanatory
title: “Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons”—and
this related to school science lessons!18
Pollsters, Ipsos Mori, had questioned thousands of adults from several
countries on how they thought the theory of evolution should be taught in school
science lessons. Referring to the same survey, the BBC reported that “More
than half of adults in a survey of 10 countries thought school science lessons should
teach evolutionary theories alongside creationism.”19

April 2011—The Independent newspaper (UK) published a balanced article
entitled: “Scientists and humanists fear creationist teaching is set to creep
into more classrooms.” Commenting on the BHA’s intention to lobby the
Government to include a requirement specifically to teach evolution in the English
and Welsh primary school (elementary in the USA) curriculum from September
2012, ID advocate Dr Michael Behe stated: "It shows that certain people have
an agenda to get children to think like them, to indoctrinate them on their side.
And to prejudice young minds to one side before they’re capable of understanding
is the opposite of education." The article continued, “Philip
Bell, the chief executive of Creation Ministries International (UK/Europe),
makes the same point. He goes on to say that when we consider the facts on which
science is based, we do so from a worldview point [of view]. … Even so, he
… has no qualms about teaching [evolution] so long as it is done ‘warts
and all’.”20

May 2011—Infighting between different humanist/atheist
factions over their strategy to protect evolution from being questioned in state-funded
schools. This spat between two groups of secularists was very illuminating regarding
the real agenda of both parties to combat creationism (which is to inculcate atheism
in students).

September 2011—Heavyweights move to ban creation.
Creation Ministries International was specifically named as a ‘threat’
to Britain’s school children, along with Truth in Science, by the
BHA.

22 September 2011—Philip Bell contacted the BHA regarding
the accusation that “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring
the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science
at a number of schools.” He told them: “The facts are rather different.
For the record, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we
visit schools only occasionally … When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation
or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never
solicited by CMI.” Adding that a CMI speaker had hardly ever addressed science
classes—and that the adverse publicity we received earlier in the year regarding
a school in Exeter had conveniently ignored that it was a Religious Education
study day (not science)—Philip asked whether the BHA would “be prepared to
issue a clarifying statement to that effect? If you value truth and integrity as
much as you claim, this would be a necessary step for you to now take.” At
the time of publication of this article, CMI has yet to receive a reply.

15 January 2012—The British Government’s Department of Education
is reported to have “revised its model funding agreement … [so that]
… funding will be withdrawn from any free school that teaches what it claims
are ‘evidence-based views or theories’ that run ‘contrary to established
scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations’ [i.e. evolutionary
dogma].” This, in turn, “has been seized upon by anti-creationists who
are pressing for wider concessions from the government” (emphasis
added).22

November 2012—The British Government announces its intention to revise the
‘Free Schools Funding Agreement’ again, so as to make the teaching of evolution
mandatory. Henceforth, ‘Free Schools’ will be required to “make provision
for the teaching of evolution as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced
theory”.23

Clearly, the BHA members and other ardent secularists will not be satisfied until
Christianity itself has been driven completely from the education system, and ultimately
from public life in general. Recall these pertinent words of John Dunphy, quoted
earlier: “It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete
with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant”
(emphasis added).24 This
is fighting talk but it is a vain confidence on the part of godless. Man-centred
philosophical reasoning (for that is what humanism is) is in stark contrast to the
certain hope of all true Christian believers. Jesus said, “I will build my
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”25

In the UK, ‘free schools’ are schools that have
been set up by parents, teachers, charities and voluntary groups. They are partly
funded by the government, but have a greater degree of autonomy than other government
schools. A number of these are ‘faith schools’, some of which are run
by Christian groups. Return to text.

CMI has refuted the charge that life’s origin is not
a problem for evolutionary theory at creation.com/15-questions-responses-1, in the
first of our “15 Questions for Evolutionists”; see creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf.
Return to text.

Scientism is the belief that the methods of the physical
sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry. This however is
an assumption and not a deduction from science. Return to text.

To quote The Skeptic’s Dictionary, “Scientism,
in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are
meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful”;
www.skepdic.com/scientism.html. Return to text.

Expand this site. Besides the over 8,000 fully searchable articles on this site, we want to add many more ways to reach a media-soaked culture. But it requires expertise to do it. Help us expand our methods of outreach. Support this site

Comments closed

Readers’ comments

Cecily M A.,Australia, 21 January 2012

Thank you for this article. All CMI articles are interesting and helpful and provide useful information for witnessing, but this one is especially useful at this point in time. Thank you again.

David H.,Australia, 21 January 2012

It is sad of course but the government’s Michael Gove is undoubtedly following a natural human trait similar to the one I had when studying for a biology degree.

The human trait is that, “I am right in my beliefs because this is always what I have believed and as I have never been exposed to any other view at home or at school, and the scientific community accepts this, then I am right and it would be unthinkable that I could be wrong. Therefore it follows that a completely different view has to be wrong and can even be ridiculed because it is so far from the norm.” However, in my experience, a brave teenage girl considered that what God said was right and stood up for her beliefs. Her scientific understanding was poor but she believed that what God said was correct. About a year later, God visited me in power and I was completely changed in my thinking. The key for me was to be exposed to someone who stood strongly for what God said. After God changed me, I accepted God’s word on the matter but it wasn’t until several years later that I came across scientific articles which conclusively showed that evolutionary theory is so bankrupt in every known field of science that it is the one to be ridiculed and not God’s Word. Unfortunately, evolutionary dogma is protected savagely by the establishment consisting of the government, universities, museums, and the media who are composed of people just like Michael Gove and just like I was who believe that they cannot be wrong in their beliefs. Evolution belief is indeed a religious belief and can only be destroyed in people’s minds by God who uses His people to deliver His message that what He says is true—as Creation Ministries and others are doing.

Wildee R.,Philippines, 21 January 2012

A sheer act of desperation. They fear that their arguments will not survive and so they instead choose to ban speech by the stronger opponent. But here is what they do not know and will never be able to silence….they will never be able to suppress the voices in creation that had already been screaming the glory of the Creator even before these fools wore diapers.

Judie S.,Australia, 21 January 2012

Given that evolution is about increasing information, and natural selection decreases information, would it be worth pushing the point that “NATURAL SELECTION IS THE OPPOSITE OF EVOLUTION”?

This may be a wake-up call to Christian thinking that evolutionary philosophy can be mixed with Christian faith without problems. Why is Dawkins et.al. gloating? Because of “objective facts” winning over “religious bias”? No doubt, in his pro-active battle for atheism, he would (probably) like to believe that, but any sober-minded Christian should here be able to discern the contours of spiritual allegiances coming into unmistakeable view: Dawkins hates Christianity and rejoices in evolutionary ideas. To him the predominance of evolutionary belief is a victory over Christian religion. He and fellow atheists expresses hatred of Christianity, and particularly creationism (But God grant that they all repent unto saving faith!). How difficult then is it for a Christian to discern what Darwinism (and neo-Darwinism) really is all about? How difficult should it be to smell the rotting rat in the wall painted with nice-sounding words of “tolerance” and “scientific integrity” and “unnecessary stumbling blocks to faith” and “perifere doctrinal details”?

We must receive God’s grace into our lives by faith in the Jesus of the gospels. Anything undermining the reliability of the Gospel should be discarded by Christian!

How much more when the so-called evidences for evolution are at best extremely weak, tendicious, self-serving, hoax-ridden and mostly gains credibility because the possibility of God’s creative act is denied as an a-priori??

Robin S.,United Kingdom, 21 January 2012

I believe that one man on the side of God (our Creator) is in the majority. So keep up the Creation message battle—you cannot lose!

Murk P.,Canada, 23 January 2012

Pretend dialogue with author of this statement: Me = me, AR = Atheist response (assuming they answer with some consistency to their espoused worldview)

“funding will be withdrawn from any free school that teaches what it claims are ‘evidence-based views or theories’ that run ‘contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations’”

Me: who cares what it claims – are the claims true?

AR: truth is relative to the individual

Me: So will schools who teach “evidence based views” get relative cheques?

Me: Is it absolutely true that truth is relative to the individual?

AR: yes

Me: you don’t see a problem with this

AR: yes but I’m hanging on to my commitments to materialism in spite of the absurdity

Me: can an evidenced based view or theory be wrong?

AR: Yes

Me: can established scientific views be wrong?

AR: Yes

Me: by what authority is the one chosen over the other then?

AR: simply because it is in our power to do so

Me: How can you know what is wrong since your worldview only allows material explanations ?

AR: We have faith that there is no metaphysical reality

Me: You do not recognize that your above statement is a metaphysical statement?

AR: Yes uh no, the point is we cannot know anything for sure, (contradiction obviously missed) but we know we are right and you are wrong.

Me: Rejecting me is of no consequence, you need to concern yourself about rejecting the one who said:

“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Francies M.,United Kingdom, 23 January 2012

One of the reasons I have seen for people (such as David Attenborough) not believing in a Creator is that nature is full of unpleasant things which a Creator could not possibly have made. I find this argument incomprehensible. Let me rephrase it. I cannot stand the nuclear bomb, it is truly evil. Since all scientists are rational and caring (they must be as some of the most prominent ones are deeply concerned about teaching children "myths" which they consider child abuse) science cannot possibly have created such a thing as a nuclear bomb. Therefore the nuclear bomb must have evolved by accident.

Francis R.,Zimbabwe, 20 September 2012

“15 January 2012—The British Government’s Department of Education is reported to have “revised its model funding agreement … [so that] … funding will be withdrawn from any free school that teaches what it claims are ‘evidence-based views or theories’ that run ‘contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations’ [i.e. evolutionary dogma].””

This is a double edged sword. Firstly, a free school receiving government funding could teach creationism, then when the funding is withdrawn, take the Department of Education to court where it can then be shown that government schools are teaching views or theories that run contrary to established scientific facts and evidences!